Exploring abrupt climate change induced by comets and asteroids during human history

Tusk TV: Younger Dryas Event at 27:00 minutes

95 Responses

  1. I do not believe that Dr. Boslough’s Tunguska model is accurate. It leaves out the data on that impactors trajectory before detonation, as well as the eye witness accounts of the detonation itself.

    We also have data from Sikote Ailin on the behavior of smaller iron impactors.

    Instead of a 20 foot object detonating at 7.5 miles altitude, it seems to me that it was more likely a 60 meter object with a point detonation at 4 kilometers altitude at 15 megatons of explosive force.

    From what is known from the historical and recent data, my opinion is that Boslough’s impact frequency estimate for Tunguska class impacts is correct, however –
    1 per 100 years.

  2. Yeah, I get a kick out of people who assume that their personal opinions trump science, actual formulae, math, and statistical analysis. They don’t. Only more science does that.

  3. [This was mostly written last night, before seeing the two preceding comments…]

    The video. . .

    Same old, same old. Asserting one thing while even their own graphics and terminology show and talk about “destruction,” “destruction,” “destruction.”

    6 or 20 or 40 km/sec impacts of objects into each other destroy, not build. Even ONE km/sec is 3600 miles per hour. These speeds pulverize – like Barringer’s white powder (in the video). Like the magnetic particles found by the tens of thousands by the meteor hunters with metal detectors. Destroying, not building.

    Sudbury and its deep deposits are possible after a planet is built, so that the energy can be focused and contained. Such is not possible with small bodies out in space. Yes, they TALK about planets being built from smaller objects, but the impacts of smaller bodies with smaller bodies can NOT – and cannot be shown to – fuse them together into “larger, solid bodies.”

    All craters display destruction, pulverization, and the creation of nanodiamonds and other impact materials. And what do we find when we find those? TINY things, created from larger bodies – the exact OPPOSITE of agglomeration and fusing into larger bodies.

    Nothing in this video – except the action deep within an already existing Earth (and IN the Canadian Shield) at Sudbury – shows ANYTHING being built larger from smaller components. And Sudbury I address above.

    Absolutely nothing in this video sways me from my central argument – that hypervelocity at impact is destructive, not creative, that it destroys instead of being a building process. On the contrary, the video supports my arguments – in every way except the words coming out of people’s mouths, which words are belied by the evidence of the models, the dust everywhere, the small fragments, etc.

    One only has to consider high-speed bullets when they impact to get some sense of whether such an impact fuses most of the target and projectile materials together. While some very small percentage of materials does fuse, the vast majority is ejected. HOW is this repeated destruction and breaking up into ever smaller pieces supposed to be how planets are supposed to have begun forming?

  4. You can argue, and rale gainst the standard model accretion theory of planet formation all you want Steve. But if you can’t describe a plausible alternative, and cite actual supportive science for that alternative theory, it’s just personal opinion. And like a certain body part that sometimes expells noxious gasses, and fumes, everyone’s got one of those too.

  5. P.S. if I take a ball, and drop it, it may bounce a few times, loosing a little energy each time it does. But the force of gravity eventually prevails, and the ball (or meteoroid in space) will always come to rest in contact with the Earth. (Or the larger of two bodies in space.)

  6. If the earth wasn’t yet set up, just kind of a gelateneous ball of semi molten material with a very thin crust. I could see impacts being absorbed by the mass much like a bullet into ballistic gel blocks. Today if those sized impacts occurred the earth would be destroyed. The crust would not allow for impactor absorbtion.

  7. The simple fact is that every object in space, no matter how large or small, that has a gravitational field also has an escape velocity. And no matter how violent, and destructive, an impact event might be, if none of the ejecta from that impact gets accelerated beyond the escape velocity of the larger body, then logically we can say that larger body has accreted the mass of the smaller body.

    Barringer Crater is the main example given in the video, and this post. And since none of the models of the Barringer impact event show enough energy to have accelerated any of the ejecta to Earth’s escape velocity, then we can say that 100% of the mass of the bolide is still on Earth, and that this world of ours became a little bigger that day.

    And even in the case of Sudbury where there was enough impact energy that some small portion of the ejecta may have reached escape velocity, the lion’s share of the Sudbury object’s mass was accreted to the Earth. So the idea that the the video is not supportive of the accretion theory of planet formation just does not hold up.

  8. The only way I could see Acretion happening is if 2 or more particles pieces whatever come into contact with each other while traveling the same direction at almost the same speed and each having an opposite magnetic charge they COULD stick together. Have this happen again and again and eventually you could have enough debris to start to have a gravitational field. Once gravity is established then even more debris can be brought in for accumulation. I don’t know at what point spin is achieved or at what point heating starts happen. This is just conjecture but while the object is somewhat small I don’t think the gravitational pull is enough to crash debris into the surface just enough to bring it in and add to the mass. Once the gravity has increased to the point of crashing objects onto the surface now you have damage to contend with. Once the plantatoid has cleared the surrounding area of attractable debris the only things left are the occassional comets or asteroids that may or may not come close enough to be pulled into the gravity field of the planet.

  9. Dennis; I had not considered the concept of the impactor accreting by way of pulverization, but it makes sense. One is always looking for the big piece that makes the big hole. Another thought that relates to this idea is that the earth is constantly growing just from the amount of cosmic dust that continuously rains down every day, I believe the number to be around 40 thousand tons daily, but I have found no numbers for how much is lost daily back to space if any. $40,000 tons doesn’t sound like much, but daily for billions of yrs I guess it adds up. Ed; Data is data. It’s the interpertation that’s interesting. You see it one way, I see it another, Dennis sees it another etc etc etc. Replication is the only answer. If the model fits: WEAR IT! If not, Why?

  10. Dennis: “The simple fact is that every object in space, no matter how large or small, that has a gravitational field also has an escape velocity. And no matter how violent, and destructive, an impact event might be, if none of the ejecta from that impact gets accelerated beyond the escape velocity of the larger body, then logically we can say that larger body has accreted the mass of the smaller body.”

    Exactly. The accretion you describe is material coming to REST on the larger body. See all the loose regoliths on Comet 25143 Itokawa as an example at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25143_Itokawa#mediaviewer/File:Itokawa4.jpg

    No telling where all that debris came from, but some would probably have come from ejecta that returned. But look at it, just sitting there.

    Your baseball – how long before it fuses to the Earth, to the dirt it is sitting on? As you said yourself, the baseball “will always come to rest in contact with the Earth. (Or the larger of two bodies in space.)”

    I have long ago here talked about the Allende meteroite, which is made up of typical chondrite material – FUSED rock, with olivine and peridotite. Look those materials up and see how much PRESSURE (not gravity) and HEAT is necessary to form them. Peridotite, in fact, forms right alongside DIAMONDS.

    You’re not getting the point, Dennis. Rocks CANNOT not form into solids from dust particles that are lying at rest on their surface. I have dealt with iron, steel, and aluminum alloys for decades and learned a lot about how they are smelted. Some paterials only need to be melted in order to gain their material characteristics. Others need not only HEAT, but PRESSURE. Olivine and peridotite are two of those.

    All of the peridotite studies I am finding talk about upper mantle conditions or their equivalent.

    Wiki [Upper mantle]:

    Mantle rocks shallower than about 410 km (250 mi) depth consist mostly of olivine, pyroxenes, spinel-structure minerals, and garnet; typical rock types are thought to be peridotite, dunite (olivine-rich peridotite), and eclogite.

    What are the pressures and temps in the upper mantle? heat and pressure are both very high. Ergo, if the Allende meteorite has peridotite, the meteor HAD TO HAVE formed under similar circumstances. THIS IS ALL BASIC MATERIALS SCIENCE.

    So, as to an alternative, the obvious thing is that at least the Allende meteorite (and all others like it or similar) must have formed DEEP inside a VERY large body – a moon or planet. Yet, before it impacted Earth’s surface, it was flying around in space. How does a chunk of SOLID material (not loose debris) get from inside a moon to flying around “out there” in space? The only way I can see is the Exploding Planet hypothesis. Or by an impact large enough to destroy a moon.

    You asked for an alternative hypothesis. You got one. At least mine explains how solid peridotite and olivine can exist in a meteor.

    Then, for a kicker, here is an abstract:


    Piston cylinder and multianvil experiments from 1 to 27 GPa [143,000 psi to 3,860,000 psi] have been performed on the Allende CV3 meteorite to establish a pressure-temperature phase diagram that includes major phase boundaries and the silicate-oxide-sulfide melting intervals. Olivine is the liquidus phase up to ~14 GPa [2,000,000 psi], followed by garnet up to ~25 GPa [3,500,000 psi]. Near 26 GPa [3,700,000 psi] a cotectic exists where garnet and magnesiowüstite are liquidus phases. Magnesiowüstite is likely to be a lower mantle liquidus phase in both chondritic and peridotitic (see also Zhang and Herzberg, 1994) compositions. Hence element partitioning tests that neglect the role of liquidus magnesiowüstite may be incomplete for describing planetary differentiation at pressures >25 GPa [3,500,000 psi]. Allende shows immiscibility between (Fe,Ni)-sulfide melt and FeO-rich silicate melt. (Fe,Ni)-sulfide is the lower temperature melt phase and is present at all experimental pressures and temperatures investigated. It is concluded that a terrestrial planet with a radius of ~3000 km (maximum internal pressure of ~30 GPa [4,250,000 psi]), and a bulk composition of carbonaceous chondrite, will upon magmatic differentiation form an FeO-rich silicate mantle with an Fe-Ni-S core. The silicate fraction of Allende in our high-pressure experiments is too rich in FeO to be a good match for the composition of peridotite xenoliths from Earth’s upper mantle. However, the major elements of a peridotite upper mantle may be derived from an Allende-like bulk Earth by a combination of lower mantle magnesiowüstite, perovskite, and sulfide fractionation and by upper mantle olivine flotation.

    See “Pressure-temperature phase diagram for the Allende meteorite – Agee et al 1995” http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995JGR…10017725A

    And what does all that mean? To me it says more or less that peridotite needs a body of 6000 km diameter to form (that that paper got THIS specific shocked me), in which case it will NOT be the deepest material formed, but that it is one of a sequence of materials being formed, depending on depth/pressure/temperature. [FYI, 1 gPa = 143,000 psi.]

    Those are VERY large pressures. I hope that those numbers will impress upon you what kind of conditions are needed – and which cannot possibly exist on asteroids.

    While all of this applies to very large moons and planets, none of it CAN POSSIBLY apply to asteroids, which are far too small to develop the abyssal pressures of >2,000,000 psi and commensurate temperatures.

    What does that tell us? That asteroids and meteoroids that include peridotite and similar materials had to come from inside one or more planets, at depths of up to 410 km.

    Dennis, I didn’t invent any of this. You could have the ingredients to make peridotite sitting on the surface of a meteoroid or asteroid for eons and the material would never melt together to form peridotite. You have to bury the ingredients to about 50-410 km deep inside a planet of 6000 km diameter.

    And THEN you have to somehow get those materials OUT – in order to BE a meteoroid flying around the solar system.

    Oh, and most peridotite changes to something ELSE when the pressure is lowered, as in when you bring it up to the surface. Not all, but most. So, pretty much, most of the peridotite in the Allende meteorite was solidified when deep inside the planet and then stayed as solid peridotite as it was extracted. It could not have been exposed to the same conditions it would have if brought up slowly – if it had, it would have changed to some other material, like olivine. Since some of the meteorite is also olivine, this conversion probably happened.

    PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE. No asteroid has sufficient gravity to produce the requisite pressure.

    I expect you to ignore all of this, because you think I don’t know squat. But what I’ve written here is not me; it is the physics of peridotite and how it CAN be made. I am not inventing this information. But I have a great sense of what they MEAN. And what they mean is that asteroids and meteoroids could not have formed while flying around in deep space. At least Allende didn’t. And if THAT one didn’t, is it typical? Well, 4% of meteorites are like Allende. So one has to explain at least those 4%.

    Look up all of this yourself, if you don’t believe me.

  11. I can’t help but wonder if some iron asteriods exist as ancient shrapnel from the destruction of planets that were far enough from the shock of a nearby supernova for larger chunks of planetary cores to survive.
    I wonder what happens to the planets in a neighboring solar system that might be far enough away to get blasted into fragments, instead of microscopic dust grains

  12. I’m sure that all asteroids and probably comets are left over debris from planetary explosions. What other explanation covers the differences in the objects composition yet can put them under the same umbrella? As for the sateroid that are in the belt out by Mars I’m sure that there was a planet or moon that occupied that general area and was destroyed by impact or some other self destructing mechanism. I don’t think that debris from outside our solar system could come flying in and then pull up and take residence in a particular orbit. Another thought that just occurred; Could the asteroid belt be a debris ring for the sun just a Saturn has debris rings around it?

  13. Good questions, Dennis. Do you entirely rule out a blasted planet and its fragments here in Sol’s system?

  14. Jim – Agreed, the different compositions of objects*** are part of why I see the exploding planet as something that seems to explain some things. All things? Who knows? If people had put 1/20th as much time into looking into an exploding planet as they have the existing hypotheses, perhaps we would come up with some of the more exotic questions. No one can get past the fundamental questions because there are only one or two astronomers even thinking in that direction, while thousands ask questions in the other direction.

    Let me make this clear, though: I am NOT sure that is the answer, unlike you, Jim. But it totally seems like a valid direction for inquiring. And until inquiring is done, it is all loose ends. Van Flandern went in that direction a good deal, but on his own didn’t progress. Two minds are better than one, and several would be even better. It is a nice, simple, starting point, and that makes it attractive. But that doesn’t make it true. But the planetary nebula is also a simple concept, too. And that doesn’t make that true, either. Certainly people can pick holes in both. But the fact is, we have CHUNKS flying around in our otherwise orderly solar system, and they make the place a dangerous place to have an inhabited planet. Van Flandern was able early in his career to trace back cometary orbits to a common starting point. And almost no work was ever done on that. In the planetary nebula, the dispersal of starting points should be all around the 360° of the planetary plane.

    I am just pointing out that SOME of the things that are accepted without challenge or without close inspection – agglomeration in particular – seem to have holes in them. In EVERY explanation I’ve seen of the planetary nebula and planetary formation, the author or narrator simply passes over this step in one sentence, something like, “And the pieces gravitated toward each other and in time built up planets.” To me, that is where the questions should START – but no one asks any.

    *** I’ve always thought that ice in comets could represent water from lakes or oceans or whatever else might exist on a planet outside Mars’ orbit. Underground lakes? This is assuming a planet that used to be in the asteroid belt. Carbonaceous chondrites like Allende – are they parts of the planet’s mantle? Are iron-nickel asteroids and meteorites from the planet’s core? I mean, that is a reasonable question.

    How BIG was the proposed planet? That 6000km diameter is the first thing I’ve ever seen that suggests a specific size range. Some people nix the idea of an exploding planet with a simple-minded statement that, “If you add up all the asteroids and comets, the mass is too small.” Well and good, but let’s inquire as to what they base that on. Did they account for some X% getting swallowed up by Jupiter? Y% by the Sun? Z% in raining down on all the moons and other planets? We can’t SEE the surface of the four biggest planets (read: gravity wells), so how can we know how much could have hit those? ALL the non-gas-giant moons and planets are RIDDLED with impact craters. ALL of those are said to have happened early in the life of the solar system. But ARE they that old? Why? Because all of the thinking has been wrapped around the planetary nebula hypothesis, so that is the paradigm people’s minds aim to fit it into. And they also tell us – EVERY TIME – that in looking at asteroids or meteors that they can tell us what it was like at the beginning of the solar system. IMHO, not necessarily so. When peridotite is there, no. When olivine is there, no. Those came from a later process, the formation of a planet’s interior. That is what I think. Physics says so. Geological processes say so.

    200 years ago all of the thinking about geology was that all the evidence of striations on rocks, plus all the evidence of erratic boulders, etc., was wrapped around Noah’s Flood or some such flood. And within decades that same evidence was miraculously seen to NOT support a flood at all, but ice ages. So, science can wrap evidence around whatever the prevailing hypothesis (i.e., thinking) is. EVEN THOUGH the evidence hadn’t changed an iota. It was the THINKING that changed.

    Do the same look back at tectonic plates and moving continents. I DO KNOW what preceded tectonic plates, and it was SILLY. I’ve mentioned it before – a shrinking planet with a crust that wrinkled as it shrunk. The orange skin model. And they had all sorts of explanations that fit that mold. But now they explain it around a different model. Different mindset, same evidence = different interpretation.

    So, if off in the future the main body of astronomers choose to think in terms of an exploding planet, trust me, they will find all sorts of ways to make their evidence fit THAT model instead of the planetary nebula one.

    Now, don’t think that I think EVERY part of the planetary nebula model to be stupid. If a planet accrues enough mass – even if it is all loose dust to start out with, then the weight of overlying burden WILL compress the deep portions. I don’t disagree that that makes sense. My thing is that the body DOES have to be quite large. And that 6000 km size sounds like it is not too much off base. But then, still, how to explain smaller moons? SOLID moons that are the size of Phobos and Deimos, for example? Different types of rocks forming, one would suppose.

    I don’t know.

    – – – –
    Jim, your point about “debris from outside our solar system… flying in and then” pulling up and taking up residence in a particular orbit – THAT is one of the very good questions, too.

    Taken step by step,
    1. The debris is supposed to have come from an exploding star, in a nova or super-nova
    2. The heavier elements were formed BY the explosion itself, in the case of super-novas
    3. The explosion had to have accelerated the materials to above escape velocity of that particular star.
    4. Otherwise, the materials would have all fallen back in on the star, creating white or brown dwarfs or some such body
    5. That velocity is 30,000 km/sec, according to Wiki:Supernova
    6. That velocity is about 1000 times faster than the orbital velocity of the Earth
    7. Once accelerated to that velocity, the debris would have retained that velocity out across the galaxy
    8. Once the materials entered into the vicinity of the Sun, SOMETHING had to have slowed them down to the velocities they now have. (Can they have slowed down along the way? Only to a very small degree. Slowing down to 1/1000th of their escape velocity? I don’t see it happening, actually…LOL. This is a question to ask the next astronomer we meet.)
    9. These materials will whizz in and out of the vicinity of the Sun so fast that they will hardly know it was there. The escape velocity of the Sun is 620 km/sec, so they are going about 50 times faster than solar escape velocity.
    10. The solar wind is a good part of what slows the Earth down, as small as that effect is. Will that be enough to slow down material coming from a supernova. No.
    11. The orbital velocities are not equal among the planets. I’d kind of expect if the materials that made up the planets to have come from supernova material screaming into the neighborhood, then the outer planets should (IMHO) have the same orbital velocities that the inner ones do. No such reality. Mercury’s is 47.4 km/sec, while Neptune’s is 5.4 km/sec. One would even expect that the inner ones would be most effected by the solar wind, but no; the orbital velocities show, if anything, the opposite.

    So, there are problems with the sun-trapping-the-bypassing-supernova-material idea. Just as you suspected.

    – – – –
    Jim, as to the asteroid belt being an analog for the Saturnian rings, IMHO, they are. But I tie that to the exploding planet, too. According to the planetary nebula theory, all of that is just debris that never got accumulated into the planets. BTW, Jupiter and at least Uranus also have rings. Jupiter’s I predicted, back in the early 1970s – but I think it was just a lucky guess, probably. I saw it in a dream and then thought that it made sense. True story. (Hahaha – it was just my New age vibes tuning in!…LOL)

    – – – –
    Jim, now think of the angle subtended by each particle coming out of a supernova. How spread out are two neighboring particles by the time they’ve covered the distance from the supernova across many light years to Sol? How TENUOUS would that dust cloud BE? I think I will take a stab at that shortly. . .

  15. Steve; Vibes are a good jumping off point they’re there for a reason just follow and see. A native american gentlemen told me that when you drop something repeatedly and try to pck it back up and drop it again, look past he dropped item, there’s something else you’re supposed to see or learn. As to the super nova particles spreading out over the universe, when one explodes that’s what happens but how many have gone Kaboom over the millenia sending their material out in all directions. Also if the uiverse is not infinite then some of this material has to hit the edge of the pond and reverberate back into the uiversal pool time and time again until nothing can be traced back to it’s original source. Would the collective gravity of the entire solar system be enough to slow down the speeding particles? If they have past by or through other systems could this be a possibility for slowing them down to the point of capture?

  16. Jim –

    Rough numbers. . . at 30,000 km/sec velocity out of a supernova (that is 10% of the speed of light, btw), and with nothing to slow the matter down in its long journey to the Solar System, it is still going that fast when it arrives. It take about 4 hours for the matter to cross the ENTIRE solar system, from one side of Neptune’s orbit to the other. Seeing as it takes Neptune 165 years to do 3.14 times that distance, on each orbit, that might give us a clue to how fast the matter was coming past. For the Sun to capture that matter – nobody talks about how unlikely that would have been, or could have been. Light goes 10 times faster, but that MATTER goes 1,000 times faster than the Earth in its orbit.

    Let’s not forget the speed of the Sun around the galaxy, though. [Wiki]: “That orbital speed of the Solar System about the center of the Galaxy is approximately 220 km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light (.00073). At this speed, it takes around 1,400 years for the Solar System to travel a distance of 1 light-year” [Wiki] The matter from the supernova will cover that same light-year in a mere 10 years. THAT is the amount of braking required to put matter into orbit around the Sun – 139/140ths of its speed (AND ITS ENERGY) needs to be removed. Given the total mass of the planets, that amount of energy to take out is a LOT (WAAAY beyond a helluva lot, in fact); the planetary nebula would have been glowing white for a LONG TIME, just from the heat energy generated. (The kinetic energy has to be converted into SOMETHING, some other form of energy; the usual way in braking is to turn it into heat energy.) But given that gravity is the only force that they can invoke to DO this braking, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the Sun’s gravity is completely ill-equipped to do the braking.

    It is one thing for them to come up with ideas, waving a magic wand over the parts that they don’t see a clear and thorough explanation for, and then moving on to the next topic. They did not do due diligence on the capturing of matter from supernovas. And they HAD to think in terms of capturing, because otherwise we would not have the heavier elements on Earth. That material from the supernovas could not have slowed down enough to go into orbit, because there was no force strong enough to slow it down. THEN the agglomeration of dust particles into asteroids and small moons – and then end up as solid chunks – that couldn’t have happened, either. BOTH processes are just given a pass as to whether they are realistic. Both are driven by gravity, yet neither one is possible if driven by gravity. They make for nice, pretty graphics – system-wide asteroids belts/Saturnian rings in artists’ renditions, slowly rotating around a glowing star; or matter entering the solar system and then veering into nice asteroidal orbits – but there are some serious number problems.

    Jim – As to multiple supernovas spraying their debris in a 360-360 pattern all over the galaxy, it seems like you might be suggesting that the matter streams from multiple ones intersected and reacted to each other. Remember that, as the matter travels away from the supernova, it is also thinning out for every km it travels. By the time it arrives in our neighborhood after traveling for hundreds of light-years, it is VERY tenuous. My rough calculation showed that, for example, Betelgeuse at 427 light-years away would deliver to our solar system only about 6kg for every cubic kilometer. And that matter is only HERE for about 4 hours before it continues on its way. And then it never appears here again. But supposing something stopped it enough. Would there be enough mass coming by to equate to the mass of the planets and asteroids?

    The total mass of the planets and asteroids is 2.67E27, or 2.67 x 10^27.

    Let’s see how much mass would be coming by from a supernova. The biggest star out there, volume-wise, is the red giant Betelgeuse, at 427 light-years away. If it went supernova, the matter that would pass through the Solar System inside the orbit of Neptune would be about 4.7E14 kg, or 4.7 x 10^14 kg. The first conclusion is that that is not enough mass to make the planets. It comes up WAAAAAAY short – by a factor of about 5 QUADRILLION!

    So, where did all the mass of our planets come from? 5 quadrillion supernovas?

    And if it couldn’t have come from supernovas, then where did it all come from? Our Sun? Not heavy elements, so that doesn’t work – unless there are things they don’t understand about the making of elements and about stars. Frankly, I don’t have an answer.

  17. Pierson –

    Cool stuff. A ring around an asteroid. Actually TWO rings.

    That somewhat follows Tom van Flandern, who asserted correctly that comets and asteroids should have satellites.

    As the article says: “‘So, as well as the rings, it’s likely that Chariklo has at least one small moon still waiting to be discovered,‘ adds Felipe Braga Ribas.”

    If the collision>debris reasoning turns out to be correct, that follows with what I’ve asserted about collisions being destructive – not constructive – events.

    The paper itself is at http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1410/eso1410a.pdf.

  18. Steve; I’m about to go way out on a very tenuous limb, So far out of the box that I can’t even see it. Here goes: What about black holes? The black hole is so dense that even light can’t escape it. As far as I know the black hole only accumulates matter. It doesn’t give off heat, radiance or anything. The only thing happening is that all the consumed matter is compressed into nothingness. At what point is a blackhole filled, if at all? If it can’t be filled then the universe will be eventually consumed by all the black holes. As far as huamn reasoning goes all matter can be neither created nor destroyed. It can be broken down to its basiic components, atomic through sub-atomic, then reassembled as something else but not destroyed. If this is the case could BH’s be the construction platform for the universe. All matter comes in gets compressed then released somewhere else in the universe as solid matter of some kind. As this matter reemrges it starts to decompress in the vac of space forming bits, pieces etc of matter we see traveling around. As we can’t see what’s on the other side of a BH this all conjecture at it’s worst. Early Morning mind excercise before the clearing effects of 3 cups of coffee. How’s that for sci-fi?

  19. Pierson –

    Yes, that is a cool looking comet. Four main things are apparent.

    1. Its shape
    2. The cratering
    3. The small amount of regoliths on the surface.
    4. Where is the ice? Ice appears to be missing. LOL

    All three can be reasonably explained by impacts over time. It is known from meteorites that the internal structures of meteors is not homogeneous or regular. If this as a meteor we might be thinking slightly differently, but basically, impacts are not often going to hit dead center, so off-center impacts should be able to carve out all sorts of weird shapes for meteors. But does that also apply to comets? Why not?

    If that shape comes from impacts, then one has to marvel that the impacts did not break it apart altogether. Especially since comets are supposed to be so much less dense than meteors. And since density is seen as a proxy for cohering strength, it seems that a comet should be more likely to be broken up by impacts.

    At the same time, there must be nearly infinite juxtapositions when two objects traveling around the solar system might impact each other, so shouldn’t we be expecting all sorts of weird shapes? Add to that the imperfect homogeneity of objects out there, and that is two factors arguing for weird shapes.

    In other words, I am not surprised by this at all.

    Also: If that size of smaller lobe were to impact an object of the larger size at relative velocities of perhaps 10-40 km per second, I’d expect them to both be disintegrated. So I don’t see this as a fused-at-impact thing at all. The material components of comets would not survive such an impact.

  20. Just as a comet disintegrates upon hitting the Earth’s surface, it should do the same thing upon hitting the surface of another small object. The mass of the larger one shouldn’t make any difference to the smaller one. It should be disintegrated and form nanodiamonds (assuming carbon is present) and other impactites. The the smaller the larger object is, the more likely it would be also disintegrated.

    That is what it seems like to me.

  21. Jim –

    I will take a pass on black holes right now. For one thing, they keep on changing what a black hole can keep in and what it can’t. Your description is what they teach in school. But among the cosmologists, they say taht some things CAN escape. Plus they point at jets coming out along the black hole rotational axis and say that THAT is okay, that stuff can exit along the axis. That makes n sense to me. Gravity doesn’t just work on the accretion disk. Gravity is 360°x360°.

    So I am not one to ask… I think they’ve gone off into La-La Land…

  22. Pierson –

    Yeah, you could be right. Hopefully with them landing on it we will all know more about this comet than any in history. Funny how they picked one that ended up being so odd…

    25143 Itokawa – also landed on – is a peanut shaped asteroid, so it may be a fairly common shape among smaller objects. This one is peanut shaped, too, but to a more exaggerated degree.

  23. This view of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko almost makes it look like it is two pieces that are resting against each other: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/files/2014/08/Comet_close-up.png

    Thinking out loud here. . .

    …The surface of the larger looks like a different makeup – though that is likely to be misleading. In the earlier view they looked solidly connected. New images will clarify it, certainly.

    …My impression is that the pock marks/cratering seem to show that material has been removed but none added other than loose debris (and not much on this one, versus asteroid Itokawa).

    …Though the smooth grey areas might be ice with a covering of dust. Under the dust could be rock or ice, it seems.

    At the same time, ice being so friable, would high-speed impacts only make craters in ice? Or would they blow any ice to smithereens? The latter, I think.

    All in all, pretty interesting stuff.

    What does everybody else see?

  24. This conclusion to that article from Barry:
    “Dr Jourdan said the reason for impacts stopping after 3.4 billion years ago could have been from the asteroids being too small in size to be a target for collisions, or protected by regolith, a thick blanket of cushiony powder usually found at the surface of asteroids.”

    So, according to Dr. Jourdan, the more collisions asteroids had, the smaller they became. He apparently sees impacts of asteroids with asteroids as being destructive.

    So, how come asteroids hitting each other makes them smaller but in the planetary nebula theory, when the planets were forming, smaller objects hitting each other supposedly made them get larger?

    Does anyone else see a disconnect in logic on that earlier period?

  25. just reading books by O. Richard Norton and Tom Van Flandern…..

    both talk about “paired asteroids”. Flandern in his chapter “Ordits” and then on chapter 8, page 172-3.

    ….as the two bodies touch, friction will absorb the rest of the orbital energy of the satellite, and the two bodies will remain in contact….asteroid 624 Hektor provides a good model of what may occur…..we would expect to find many such contact binaries among the small bodies in the solar system….

  26. ….ghost image to the right….

    based on pictures that Flandern has included in his book, this may not be a “ghost”, but actually a “satellite” of the comet. pg 198 has the artist’s models.

    Chapter 10, “Do Comets Have Satellites”.

  27. Here is a binary asteroid. It has been selected as a backup target for the proposed MarcoPolo-R sample return mission.


    As for moving asteroids around in space… I’ve never heard of a space craft being hacked, but if someone could pull it off they could turn one of these into the most destructive weapon ever dreamed of.

  28. Pierson –

    Just thinking out loud. . .

    It’s a shame that when the visited Itokawa the sampling mechanism broke. On the other hand, if the two ends are different composition as this suggests, where would we be now? Would they have concluded that the entire body was heterogeneous? And depending on which end they landed on (I don’t know), they might have gotten it wrong – in either direction.

    I DO still argue that the dust (regolith) that adhered to some of the surface and made it back to Earth may or may not be indicative of the composition of the solid portion of Itokawa (whether the lighter end or the heavier end or the transition middle neck). The dust could have come from any of maybe many millions of space dust particles Itokawa encountered over its long life. It COULD be dust ejecta that returned to the main body, only to lie on the surface. That would be my first guess, but who knows?

    I am glad Itokawa – the first asteroid physically visited – has this complicated make-up. It is more to learn about, plus it makes it less easy for people to give simplistic explanations (speculations?).

  29. Jim –

    You give me too much credit (in whatever direction your comment was leaning).

    I just compare stuff people say or write to other stuff I’ve run across. When there is conflict between those two, I just ask what comes to mind. That’s how I did engineering, too: EVERY part and sub-assembly in every machine is asked to do a certain function, and if the engineer’s comparison of the part or sub-assembly versus known engineering principles argue that it may not work, then the engineer has to have the foresight and experience to recognize the problem and re-think the part or sub-assembly until it is brought in line. It was my job to eliminate the conflicts. But if one doesn’t inquire – if one takes someone else’s word for something, for example – things can get mighty messy, mighty quickly. There is nothing magical about any of it – in engineering or in the theoretical sciences. It just takes knowing enough to know what one is looking at. And having the confidence in one’s thinking process. And a low enough ego about it to risk questions that may seem silly or simplistic – and be willing to be wrong – in the interest of finding out the truth. I don’t give a crap about being right about ANY particular point or process, as long as over time more becomes known and the veil is lifted from our eyes a bit more.

    Now, theoretical science doesn’t always HAVE anything like “known engineering principles.” So a lot of latitude is given people when they try to piece together evidence and data. This is why many papers contradict other papers with very different interpretations about what the evidence means. Global warming folks tired to give climatology the bum’s rush when they declared that “the science is settled.” And they almost got away with it, even though it was not true. In reality, there are lots of papers that disagree with their conclusions, despite the declaration of “known climatological principles.”

    But much of science is loaded with caveats about our understanding, at least among the scientists. Unfortunately, science journalists sometimes present a different, more monolithic picture to the reading public, so people get headlines that area MUCH more assertive of “We know it all” than actually exists in the halls of science. On the frontiers of science such declarations of certainty can hold back progress for decades, perhaps longer. I only need to point at the Clovis Firsters to show how entrenched power circles can really screw up a science. Their “known anthropological principles” were wrong, and others could not work or think freely, for fear of crossing swords and battle axes with the Clovis Firsters.

    I am just one guy who is aware of some of the stuff that is out there that doesn’t make sense yet. And I ask my questions, in order to make it make more sense to me. I am somewhere between the mainstream guys and the alternative research guys. I see no reason not to question both sides on their principles.

  30. Dennis; I was going through my rock pile the other day and ran across a stone that I had set aside some time ago because it wa different, like all the ones I grab. I had recently found what I thought was a meteorite but it turned out to be steel slag cinder. I had gone to a web site to find out the criteria for being a meteorite and it said first it had to be magnetic. Second, it had to show ablation and third it had to have metalic flecking or veining inside when CUT open. This stone looks like a piece of blueish-green granite or basalt but it has what I thought was mud over it but after 2 yrs in the weather the mud didn’t come off. Then I remembered what you had told me about rinds (ablation)on stones and I went for my magnet. This stone will take the magnet right out of my hand. I’m going to try and cut with a diamond blade in the next few days and see what the inside looks like inside. This stone is about the size of a larger baseball with one side not showing any ablation marking. Wish me luck, I’ve always wanted to find a meteorite.

  31. I ran cross this from 2 weeks ago at The Rgeister


    It is about a paper that basically says:

    They claimed that the 10km-wide Goldilocks asteroid hit Mexico at exactly the right time 66 million years ago, when Earth was experiencing a period of intense volcanic activity, shifting sea levels and fluctuating temperatures.

    A pet peeve with me is how people can claim time resolution back howevre far with a lot of precision, like to tell from those four things – impact, volcanic acitivity, shifting sea levels, and temperature swings – which came first, the dinosaur or the egg?

    Of course they can’t.

    And, of course, the other three are things that can be triggered by the impact. But THAT isn’t gradualism, so even when they admit to a catastrophic event – the impact – they have to write it up as if the impact of a 10-km comet happened and NOTHING was changed by the impact. Except that all the dinosaurs died. They have to roll in as much gradualism a possible.

    Give me an f-ing break.

    It’s just like the YD impact – ALL SORTS OF THINGS CHANGED AT THAT TIME, but they can’t admit that the change came about because f the impact. Everything on Earth went along just as before. Mammoths were dying for tens of thousands of years, blah, blah, blah. . . So, when THAT impact came, it didn’t have anything much to do.

    It’s not like they can tell that the mammoths’ death rate was X at 70.0 YA, Y at 50.o kya, and Z at 30.0 kya. They find mammoths that died at any of those times and somehow read into finding a few tens of remains that the mammoths were endangered and having dwindling numbers. I’d love to see the paper that can convince me that that was actually happening. One with NO assumptions and only data.

  32. agimarc –

    I a, glad they are beginning to see how common these piles of rubble are. That makes at least three in a very short time – one being a comet. It doesn’t address the other point, though – how did the individual rocks form in space. Rocks are either igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary. We can rule out any consideration of sedimentary, since it takes liquid water and compression from overlying layers to compress the sediments. We can also rule out igneous rock formation, since it comes from magma or lava, i.e., volcanoes. That really only leaves metamorphic, which need high temps and high pressures to form. But that should rule metamorphic out, too, though the materials in at least some meteorites IS metamorphic.

    So, having a “pile of rocks” necessitates that the individual rocks themselves needed to form in space. But how?

    These piles of rocks should also begin to get astronomers asking more questions about the planetary nebula theory. After all, here are small rocks that exist and seem to have been the results of a breakup of larger rocks by impacts. The articles says (with an internal contradiction): “In the past decade, scientists have confirmed that many asteroids are not solid rocks, but are instead cosmic rubble piles made up of jumbles of rocks.

    I GUARANTEE that if one looks close enough, those rocks in the “jumble” also have smaller particles laying on THEIR surfaces, too.

    But notice that the jumbled rocks ARE just lying on the surface, and they are NOT agglomerating or fusing to the main body. The planetary nebula theory says that impacts between smaller bodies created larger bodies. And then later on those larger bodies collided with other larger bodies to make even larger bodies, accruing material along the way. That IS how they will tell you those main bodies of these three recent bodies formed. But the evidence is as clear as the nose on your face that those other bodies have NOT agglomerated or fused. They are just sitting there.

  33. Steve –

    Interesting how we picked up on different things from that last link. You wanted to talk about rubble piles. I thought the fact that it is rotating faster than it should be very interesting. They speculate Van Der Wall’s force (essentially electrostatic forces between the individual grains) is holding it together.

    Found another one in phys.org today. Dust analysis is being crowd sourced on the returned Stardust dust catcher not unlike what SETI did with screen savers. They think they found 7 dust grains that are interstellar in nature. A few of them are light agglomerations which would make accretion fans like me happy. One appears to have olivine, which would make you happy.

    Link follows: http://phys.org/news/2014-08-tiny-grains-captured-stardust-visitors.html

    I wonder if we can’t get sedimentary and metamorphic via impact processes, as they only depend on the action of heat and temperature over time and in some cases the presence of water. There a lot of very small differentiated bodies (moons and asteroids) out there. Cheers –

  34. I’m sure the spinning is due to past encounters of the real close kind. Probably a glancing blow to one end or the other setting off the spinning. With out any strong gravitational force acting on it the spinning continues unabated. Question; If there is no air etc in space only vacumn then how does centrifugal-centrepetal forces act on a body? With no air (atmosphere) to act against there is no friction to drag against the bodies causing them to disentigrate. I can understand an impact imparting energy to a body causing it to break up but with no energy input how can a breakup occur?

  35. Energy input is solar wind, and heat. Outgassing of volitiles as the comet gets closer to the sun can provide all the pressure, and energy, needed to breakup a comet. The next few months should provide a pretty good show; not to mention many variables no one anticipated.

  36. Tim; I was thinking about how far the Scotia Plate had subducted since the opening of the Drake Passage. I used your info of 65-90mm/yr to back calculate the distance of subduction. At the present rate using 75mm/yr as an average the Scotia Plate has moved approximately 4691.35miles in 34m/yr. That puts the impact out in the Pacific Ocean about equal-distance as it is into the Atlantic ocean now. I believe this to be over simplistic as I can’t see how the entire ocean floor has moved that far and kept the impact structures as seen intact, but I also don’t know how the Pacific ocean floor was dragged that far into the Atlantic to begin with. All of this seems to more indications of a major impact 34mya. This is just another idea that came across my mind so I’m going to run with it for awhile. Anyone with comment or further avenues to pursue, let me have it. I had posted this comment on Malaga Bay where the subduction rates were given to me.

  37. Dennis; For being a vacumn space sure has a lot of forces running around out there. Just when I think I’m getting my mind wrapped around a concept someone throws a curve and I start all over again. Thanks for the curve!

  38. agimarc –

    As usual, you keep bringing in cool stuff to look at and ponder over.

    I can’t recall if I posted it in a comment, but the perodotite (closely entwined with olivine) in one recent paper came up with a necessary planetary diameter of 6,000 km, in order to have the right overburden load/pressure/heat.

    I might argue till I am blue in the face that hyper-velocity impacts can only destroy. Those collision velocities are far above high-speed bullets, and it is hard to envision a bullet doing much besides doing small catastrophes wherever they hit.

    So, could the target body see proper pressures and such at a deeper level below the impact? I’d limit that to only ONE depth – too deep the pressure is too low and too shallow and the pressure is too high. Let’s just say that diamonds can (last I looked it up) be made in labs through explosions or by anvils that focus the pressure. So, I can see it as possible for single points under the surface for each impact. At the same time, a look at Allende shows more or less the same makeup right up to the shell. So that would mean it is NOT only at deeper points but also at shallow points. That doesn’t quite compute IMHO.

  39. Pardon my sense of humor, but reading the phys.org article about those particles brought back by Stardust made me think of priests arguing over how many angels could fit on the head of a pin…

    It also reminded me of the ongoing concern (and forehead smacking) about science learning more and more about less and less…

  40. Dennis –

    Yes, the solar wind exists. To say it is too small to create any force or pressure capable of doing anything like creating solid rocks is an overstatement of massive proportions. Wiki:

    Solar wind pressure
    The wind exerts a pressure at 1 AU typically in the range of 1–6 nPa (1–6×10−9 N/m2), although it can readily vary outside that range.
    The dynamic pressure is a function of wind speed and density. The formula is P = 1.6726×10−6 * n * V^2,
    where pressure P is in nPa (nano Pascals), n is the density in particles/cm3 and V is the speed in km/s of the solar wind.”

    Wheras a pressure applied cannot exceed 100% efficiency, the solar wind could not deliver more pressure than those 6 nPa at Earth’s orbit (proportionally less than that at >1 AU). Converting 6 nPa to PSI, 1 pascal = 0.000145037738 pounds per square inch. A nanopascal is one millionth of that, or 0.000000000145 psi. Seeing as olivine and perododite need like 4 million psi, one can see that the solar wind is 2.75×10^16th times too weak to contribute to forming rocks.

    Can that force push particles around? Yes, that is what it does with comets to make tails. But notice that with 1950AD spinning around every couple of hours, each revolution its particles are exposed to the solar wind on one side, and yet no one is talking about solar wind as a possible force to contend with in terms of pushing those rubble rocks away. They are only talking about centrifugal force or van der Waal’s force. (If they are not mentioning the solar wind, it is probable that they considered it as a possibility and then rejected it as worth worrying about.)

    As to the heat, the body is rotating every couple of hours so the heat is spread over the entire surface pretty well. And no one is talking about heat build-up or heat-induced out-gassing as forces to contend with. Did they consider that, too, and then reject it also? I don’t know for sure, but I’d suspect that that is the case.

    Please, correct me if I am wrong.

  41. Since we have a pretty good space craft set to actually observeaexactly what effects the sun has on a comet as it gets closer to the sun, I’m in data acquisition mode at for the next few months.
    I’m expecting that many of my own preconcieved notions disregarding comets are going to need to be reconsidered.
    I expect to have a lot to say when the Rosetta mission has followed the thing through perihelion.

  42. Dennis –

    I totally agree with you. I also expect quite a bit of what I am thinking to be tested and probably be wrong. I’ve been enjoying thinking about this stuff, but I’d prefer seeing what is really real, too.

    Let’s hope the sampling mechanism works.

  43. I wanted to comment on the 67P/C-G article, but comments were closed.

    This paragraph is just WRONG:

    “The comet itself is about 2.5 miles (4km) long and orbits the sun every six-and-a-half years. It is heading towards the sun, so as it nears the star it will begin to melt more.”

    A 6.5 year orbit can NOT get close enough to the Sun to melt anything. A 6.5 year orbit is fairly circular by definition. And it is also by definition going to mainly – if not mostly – going to be OUTSIDE the orbit of Earth.

    Even the orbital animation confirms this.

    If it never gets closer to the Sun than the Earth does, just what IS it that is supposed to be “melting”?

    It was a good and informative article, but that part simply isn’t correct.

    Gases can SUBLIMATE in that low near vacuum, but MELT? As in LIQUID?

    Somebody show me I am wrong on this.

  44. On that last – If anyone thinks, “Well, water is liquid here on Earth, so why is it so strange to say that water on a comet between Mars and Earth could be liquid?”

    THAT has to do with atmosphere and the famous/infamous “greenhouse effect.”

    Without the Earth’s atmosphere, the surface temperature would be far lower than it is.

    [Wiki] If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C.[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth’s actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C.[9]

    For the metrically challenged, ~18°C equals ~(-0.4)°F. ~14°C = ~57.2°. That is ~57.6°F difference.

    And the perihelion of 67P/C-G is a good bit further out, so the -18°C would be a good deal colder, with its lack of atmosphere.

    So, you can rule out liquid water. (As stated above, melting is very much affected negatively by the lack of pressure, too…)

  45. As to the igneous rock found within the ALM-A meteorite, again, this reiterates my points about rocks forming in space. The authors are invoking early on in the evolution of the solar system, assuming that it was all originally hot and molten. This is actually in contravention of the rules of uniformitarianism (that only processes currently seen can be invoked). But where out in space do we see molten rocks flying around? They might be hypothesized to currently exist, but IMHO they are supremely doubtful.

    Before I get too far astray from this:

    Molten rocks flying around does NOT equal vulcanism. Extrusive igneous vulcanism is EXTRUDING, from VERY HIGH subsurface pressures. It is magma coming up and being extruded onto the surface.

    As with seemingly so many other effects, vulcanism is again called up when nothing else comes to mind. Howver, in this case igneous means exactly what it says – but no vlcanism is possible or WAS possible.

    Invoking terrestrial processes requires terrestrial (planetary) forces and terrestrial MAGNITUDES of forces, with the capacity to deliver such forces (pressures and temps) that can create vulcanism. Being molten is not enough. Insufficient PRESSURES (I say, again) cannot be found.

    They argue that small object in space can have sufficient causes because they have been broken off of larger objects. As the one paper I recently linked to, it takes a planetoid of at least 6000 km to create peridotite I argue that something very nearly that size is necessary to produce magmatic chambers and vulcanism, too.

    Let’s most of all not lose sight of the fact that all of this revolves solely on the gradualist assumption that the asteroids and comets all are remnants of the early solar system. This is itself mainly or solely based on the denial of any possibility of an exploded planet – which was only even first considered possible by – you named it – the existence of comets and asteroids. All of the mainstream beliefs about asteroids and comets is that, “They COULDN’T have come from an exploding planet, so what else do we have in our bag of explanations?”

    And there the planetary nebula begins its hypothesized existence – even if the heavier elements are traveling past us at velocities FAR in excess of the escape velocity of the Sun. If the material couldn’t STOP, it couldn’t be part of any planetary nebula.

    And for each “new” revelation about asteroids and comets and meteorites, the planetary nebula theory has to be modified – OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Again, think of MicrSoft Windows and all it patches upon patches. At the same time, each of those same “new” discoveries is a natural outfall of an exploded planets. NO new inventions need to be dreamed up. No surprises when things are found on comets and asteroids.

    You want igneous rocks within comets? You got ’em with the exploding planet.

    You want metamorphic rocks within asteroids? You got ’em with the exploding planet. They didn’t get squeezed into what they are while in deep space; they were formed – and HAD TO FORM – deep under the surface of a full-sized planet.

    You want solid space rocks? You got ’em with the exploding planet. They didn’t agglomerate in space; they are debris from a full-sized planet.

    You want a source for the comets? You got ’em with the exploding planet. You don’t have to invent an Oort cloud (for which no observational astronomical evidence exists, 82 years later).

    You want a source for all the cratering all over the solar system? Look no further than an exploding planet.

    Instead of inventing new explanations ad hoc the exploding planet naturally explains them all. Continental rocks blew out, and so did water and oceanic crust – as well as its iron/nickel core. We have the asteroids, the comets, the cratering history, the catastrophes on Earth (both immediately and periodically), the Rings of Saturn and the other big planets. And it likely explains the Kuiper Belt, too.

    We certainly have found igneous and metamorphic rocks “out there.” But how about sedimentary rocks? No, we have not. And why not? One must say it is because there was no liquid surface water with which to lay down sediments. But that is not proven – just what sounds reasonable to me. Water underground is a certainty, because of the ice in comets and occasionally seen on asteroids.

    I argue strenuously that
    A.) If that water as is spewing from Ceres and those others began spewing 4 billion years ago, the asteroids would have run out of water long ago.
    B.) We will find MANY, MANY more with water ice. We just NOW are beginning to ENTER the asteroid Belt, and already as we have gotten close, we are finding it, over and over again.

    “It gives a whole new view of how the solar system was formed.”

    No duh. But what they will do is patch the old, now dysfunctional paradigm, ala MicrSoft Windows. . .

  46. Steve –

    67P has an elliptical rather than a circular orbit. From the Wiki (yeah, I know it is a Wiki, but these are pretty close to what I have seen other places and it was quick to get). It is basically bounded by Jupiter on the far end and earth on the close end. Cheers –

    Aphelion 5.6839 AU (850,300,000 km)
    Perihelion 1.2429 AU (185,940,000 km)
    Semi-major axis 3.4634 AU (518,120,000 km)
    Eccentricity 0.64113
    Orbital period 6.45 yr

  47. Steve –

    I think you get a combination of ice and gas underneath the crust of the comet. It is possible for the ice underneath to liquify locally if the crust is insufficiently porous and keeps the lid on. Once heating of the crust is sufficiently high and melts enough ice, or the local pool gets large enough, the mixture will expand into vacuum as it disrupts the crust at some point, decompresses and forms the jets. We know we get sublimation of ice in a vacuum, though that is not sufficiently vigorous to supply jets. Don’t think we know enough yet about the dynamics of jets to rule out liquids. Cheers –

  48. Pierson –
    Yes, that is the standard theory. But I don’t accept that the agglutination (agglomeration) is a viable step in the process.

    The gravitational attractions are far too small, and impacts are more destructive than creative. And when igneous rocks and metamorphic rocks that need millions of pounds of pressure are found solidly embedded in them, then I think their process is absurdly wrong. For example, how did olivine get inside them? It needs to be under kms of overburden, while being heated from below. That cannot happen in deep space on an object 3 feet across. And in order to be made up of rocks, the rocks have to exist beforehand. And iron-nickel meteors – where did the melting heat come from?

    If they have answers to these questions, I don’t find it anywhere.

    In the article linked, the “explanations” appear to be no more than ad hoc guesses, even in the way they are phrased. They even propose three alternative “explanations.” it sounds like they aren’t sure of what is going on.

    In any event, the formation of stars in birthing nebula is several steps removed from the creation of rocks in a planetary nebula. That is the beginning of the lives of stars. Heavy elements (above carbon) are created and thrown out by supernovae, which is the end of the life of a massive star. That part I have no problem with. But the ejecta velocities are about 3,000 km/sec, which is far, far too fast for a star to slow them down and put them into an orbit at 20-70 km per hour. The escape velocity is just too extreme. Where does the kinetic energy go? And what mechanism slows them down? And once small debris is going in orbit, the attraction is only enough to create “strengthless bodies.” Collisions? All they do is break up hundreds of times more mass than they contribute to a main accumulating body. And all that ejecta either exceeds the escape velocity (which is really low to begin with), or it returns as small debris or regolith sitting on the surface of the main accumulating body.

    It seems that it should all should end up as dustballs. Astronomers seem to be realizing how common such loosely bound material is. But finding rocks lying on the surface of main bodies does not explain how the solid bodies formed in the first place. With the micro-gravity out there, sufficient pressure cannot exist.

    There are so many steps in the process that seem to just be accepted on faith. From what I am finding, the planetary nebula theory falls apart on several levels.

  49. I imagine that the dust clouds of the galaxy are formed by annihilation of the stars of the first generation, when temperatures in the core of the explosion is enough to expel the outer layers (chemical elements, such as a distillery), cast iron, forming olivine, large rocks, boulders and fine dust. ………. gravity does the rest.

    Despite the explosive forces, the stars are there in the middle of the nebulae, planets exist in most stars, comets are out there ……….. gravity is powerful, even on a small scale, there seen placing a probe in orbit around a mountain …… ops, comet …

  50. Steve –

    I think you are approaching this wrong, using every discrepancy – observed or otherwise – as a vehicle to toss out a theory – accretion – that you disagree with. You propose to replace it with exploding planets. There a few huge problems with the latter: lack of out of plane mass, process that will explode a planet, and most importantly precisely what process creates the planet that explodes?

    I prefer to build based on what we see. What are they?
    1. We know via Space Station experiments that dust will tend to clump in a weightless vacuum.
    2. We have observed planetary disks.
    3. We think we have observed planets forming in some of those disks.
    4. We have observed dust globs collapsing to form stars and in turn planetary systems.
    5. We know that gravity is not the only force keeping small bodies intact (1950 DA).
    6. We know that there was a Late Heavy Bombardment in the Solar System.
    7. We have observed many small (300 mi or smaller in diameter) bodies in the solar system that are differentiated – indicating internal melting and separation into layers.

    There’s a lot we don’t know. This is a short and simple list:
    1. If the accretion starts as a rotating volume of stuff, how does it progress to a disk with a proto-star in the center?
    2. When does accretion switch over from additive to destructive (we have observed at least a single system with dust where bodies ought to be – why is this?)?
    3. Why does accretion switch over to destruction? What does that mean?
    4. How fast does the early stages of accretion progress, and why?

    Today, I demonstrated that you were incorrect about 67P’s orbit and not necessarily correct about the presence of liquid in it. Is it possible you are incorrect about other stuff?

    Like I said previously, I adhere to theories because they are placeholders for the best description of what we see. We see different stuff, and we modify those theories, which is the way the argument ought to proceed.

    As long as we are locked into the “this disproves that” paradigm, we make no progress. A better question would be “what can we prove?” and whittle the festivities down to whatever is left over and figure out how to prove or disprove that part, which in turn may or may not make the entire house of cards fall down.

    Finally, based on your location in the hot country, I don’t think you give enough weight to how things work in the cold country. Granted we don’t have any experience with space temperatures or their swings, but we deal with melting, sublimation, ice and snow for 7 months every year and know how and why it works. Take advantage of that experience in your arguments. Cheers –

  51. agimarc –

    Do not think that I invented the exploding planet. Others did, and I see strengths and weaknesses in that one, too, as it has been presented. I’ve mentioned on here before that the late Tom van Flandern had a list that went on page after page, addressing the pros of the subject.

    One at a time (first group):
    1. I don’t argue against dust clumping. In fact, I keep on pointing at it on the comets and asteroid close-ups – pointing out that they are just lying there. And in low-G I argue that that is ALL they are going to do. Going from dust clumping in low-G is one thing. Making solid rocks is another story altogether.

    2. They assert that we have observed planetary disks, yes. We have not observed the disks we’ve seen for a long enough period to determine if they will become planets. It is asserted that they will. I humbly and respectfully disagree that such will happen. What I DO see as possible is that if enough dust accumulates LOOSELY – I’ve seen the size of 6000 km and that sounds possible to create enough gravity – then the weight of thousands of km of dust would weigh enough to begin compressing the interior enough to make more solid rocks and even heat up the interior. However, the planetary nebula theory does not go directly from dust to large planet. I DO. They argue for intermediate rock forming. I DO NOT. Low-G = strengthless bodies. Comet size = insufficient gravity. Asteroid size = too little gravity.

    3. Can you point me at planets forming in planetary nebulas? I know of EXISTING small bodies that delineate the rings of Saturn, by (assuming) that their gravity attracts close by ring bodies. Is this what you are talking about? Also, the ones you talk of – are they already flattened out into rings?

    4. If you state your case clearly, I think you are mistaken. I don’t believe that we have been observing star nebulas long enough to see them collapsing AND ALSO “in turn planetary systems.” It sounds like you’ve seen somewhere where they think they have noticed a planetary system forming. Can you point me to it?***

    5. Actually, that isn’t correct. (I was going to agree with you, but then I remembered this.) They seem to be finding out RIGHT NOW that gravity is NOT the only thing holding them together. This one now 67P/C-G is spinning too rapidly, and they do NOT know yet why the thing isn’t coming apart at the seams. They are suggesting several possible other forces at work, but none has been accepted as THE answer for the additional “gluing” force.

    6. No. That does not appera to be the case. It is NOT “known”. It seems that the Late Heavy Bombardment is a hypothetical event.

    According to Written by G. Jeffrey Taylor of Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology (footnote 1 on Wikipedia):

    There may have been a dramatic event early in the history of the Solar System–the intense bombardment of the inner planets and the Moon by planetesimals during a narrow interval between 3.92 and 3.85 billion years ago, called the late heavy bombardment, but also nicknamed the lunar cataclysm. The evidence for this event comes from Apollo lunar samples and lunar meteorites. While not proven, it makes for an interesting working hypothesis. If correct, what caused it to happen?

    7. I know that small solid bodies exist. Can you point me to where someone discovered that they are layered? And that they are layered from MELTING? If you can, I’d very much appreciate that information.

    Your second group of questions – some of what we don’t know – are great. Thanks! Yes, those are great and unknown and great unknowns.

    agimarc: “Today, I demonstrated that you were incorrect about 67P’s orbit and not necessarily correct about the presence of liquid in it. Is it possible you are incorrect about other stuff?

    I must be dense. What is it exactly that you said that makes me wrong about 67P’s orbit. That it was elliptical? I don’t believe that I ever said it was not.

    I take it your point about liquids was your comment a 3:02. You talked about “ice and gas under the surface.” Then “It is possible for the ice underneath to liquify locally if the crust is insufficiently porous and keeps the lid on.”

    This I would disagree on. The surface without an atmosphere would have no greenhouse effect to raise the surface temperature above the -18°C I pointed out that Earth has. At less than 18°C, the ice could not become liquid. That makes your following sentence invalid – “Once heating of the crust is sufficiently high and melts enough ice, or the local pool gets large enough,…”

    Unlike you, on this I WOULD rule out liquid water

    Shall we agree to disagree?

    I do agree with you on thories and hypotheses as placeholders.

    However: I would INSIST that the status of placeholder be CLEAR TO ALL. Far too much of asronomy on all sorts of levels is put out as, “WE KNOW SUCH AND SUCH” – like the bit about the Late Heavy Bombardment, which you asserted we “know.” But we DO NOT know.

    If researchers would just tell the public honestly and clearly that, “This is what we think we know SO FAR about this,” I would think that is a GOOD THING. I would mention lots of other areas where this is not done, but I don’t want to open up those cans of worms…

    As to proving things or disproving things, I side with Steven Hawking and Richard Feynman, who both INSIST that nothing can actually be PROVEN, but it IS certainly possible to DISPROVE something. That is what falsification is all about. If something does not stand the test of empirical lab or field test/observation (Feynman called it “experience or experiment”), then that is falsified and should never enter the discussion again. It is “WRONG.” (Feynman’s emphasis, not mine.)

    Your turn!

    *** I totally can see where some of you may think that I think that I’ve got this all figured out. I don’t think I do, not at all.

    I DO see serious problems in the existing theories, and I am questioning those points of weakness. I do NOT know what the final answers will be. I am trying to get a discussion going to see if some things begin to look more sensible. I am quite happy you’ve joined the discussion. I challenge them and you challenge me – FINE! (If I ask dumb questions, PLEASE set me straight.)

  52. Please do not be dismissive of me because I presently live in central Mexico (where I assure you it is NOT “the hot country” you assume…LOL).

    I got a real belly laugh out of this misunderstanding of yours about me.

    “…in the cold country….”

    Hmmm. . . Does Maine count as cold country, where I lived through a record annual snowfall (150 inches)?

    How about NE Ohio, where I lived in the Snow Belt?

    How about Chicago, where I lived for 37 years, and experienced MINUS 34°F and lots of minus temps? I still cringe at having lived through January 1977, when the average temp for Chicago was only 10°F. HECK! I even MOVED that month, on a day when it was -15°F.

    Even Denver, where they use sand instead of salt on the roads, but otherwise do a creditable job of snow removal… Hahahaha Sorry, but you pegged me wrong on that one! OH, have I been through some blizzards, Señor Agimarc…

    And I assure you that I KNOW cold. Why do you think I came HERE, when I finally could?…LOL

    I’ve only been down here for 2 years. In that two years, we’ve had zero days of 100°F. We have had about 15 days of 90°F – all but one of them last year, when CHICAGO had 7 days of 100°F or more. This year? ONE day of 90°F, and that one was ONLY 90°. Not exactly the “hot country”. In its history, this town has had exactly ONE day of 100°F. So, hot it’s not.

    In fact, I am quite certain that my town here has the very best climate in the entire world. Not too hot and not too cold. Just like the Earth is in the “Goldilocks zone”, so is Steve…LOL Other cities can claim they are the best, too, like Nairobi and Honolulu and Guadalajara – or Viña del Mar, Chile, which one group deleared the best climate in the world.



    Here is what they say about VDM:

    1. Viña del Mar, Chile
    With an average annual high temperature of 66.2°F and yearly average nighttime low of 55.1°F, and with only slight variation in temperature throughout all of the months of a given year, Viña del Mar, on the central coast of Chile, ranks as the best weather place in the world for humans. Flushed by the cold Humboldt current of the Pacific Ocean, Viña del Mar sees an average daily high temperature of just 75.2°F during its warmest month of January, with an average nighttime low of 59°F in that month. The coldest month at Viña del Mar, July, experiences a mean daily high of 59°F and an average nighttime low of 50°F. Each year, Viña del Mar receives just under 19 inches of rain, with most falling in the winter months of June and July. Globally renowned for its white sand beaches (and absolutely beautiful weather), and free from the threat of ferocious cyclonic storms and tornadoes, Viña del Mar is not quite an Anthro-Weathertopia, however, as fog can occasionally envelop the region.

    Who in the WORLD wants to go to the beach when the temps are in the 60s?

    I don’t agree with THAT at all.

    First of all, the guy has his numbers wrong.

    Jan Avg low: 53° Avg hi: 86°
    Feb Avg low: 53° Avg hi: 85°
    Mar Avg low: 50° Avg hi: 81°
    Apr Avg low: 45° Avg hi: 73°
    May Avg low: 41° Avg hi: 65°
    Jun Avg low: 38° Avg hi: 60°
    Jul Avg low: 36° Avg hi: 58°
    Aug Avg low: 39° Avg hi: 62°
    Sep Avg low: 42° Avg hi: 65°
    Oct Avg low: 45° Avg hi: 72°
    Nov Avg low: 48° Avg hi: 78°
    Dec Avg low: 52° Avg hi: 83°

    Viña del Mar has NOTHING on My town:

    VDM average annual high temperature: 66.2°F
    VDM average annual low temperature: 55.1°F
    VDM average high in its hottest month: 86°F
    VDM average low in its hottest month: 59.0°F
    VDM average high in its coldest month: 59.0°F
    VDM average low in its coldest month: 50.0°F

    GTO average annual high temperature: 79.1°F
    GTO average annual low temperature: 52.3°F
    GTO average high in its hottest month: 87.1°F
    GTO average low in its hottest month: 58.2°F
    GTO average high in its coldest month: 72.1°F
    GTO average low in its coldest month: 44.4°F

    VDM is EIGHT degrees F colder on winter nights.

    SUMMER: VDM’s 86°F and 53°F vs GTO’s 87°F and 58°F.

    WINTER: VDM’s 58°F and 36°F vs GTO’s 72°F and 44°F.

    I rest my case. It is a virtual tie for summer highs, but awfully chilly at night.

    Winter highs? GTO’s 72°F versus 58°F? NO CONTEST.

    Winter lows? GTO’s 44°F versus 36°F? NO CONTEST.

    SO, my fellow Americans, my town has a better climate than the best climate in the world.

    Maybe I live on a comet…

  53. Re: Exploding planet hypothesis.

    I note that in spite of many many pages of word salad I have yet to read a plausible explanation for what makes it go kaboom.

  54. Hahaha. . .

    That’s not good enough for you? Then try Dark Energy. That is the NAME of the mysterious force that is supposedly causing the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. They don’t know what it IS, but they still gave it a name – dark energy. And is everyone running around screaming at them? “That’s not FAIR! You can’t just give it a name and then walk away without at least saying SOMETHING about it!” No, no one says a thing about it. They just accept that it isn’t explainable right now.

    So, if I call it “Exploding energy” will that give me the Nobel Prize, like the 3 guys who “discovered the acceleration”? Or at least the Cox Prize?…LOL

    But it is WONDERFULLY ironic that you should pull that “You have to fully explain the cause before we will consider your evidence” argument HERE at CosmicTusk, where WE (and th researchers we support) are asked to show the crater for the YDB before anyone will look at any of the evidence.

    BTW, me pointing out that another explosion has not required a spelled out cause is NOT a Straw Man argument/logical fallacy. Look up the definition.

    My argument is:


    I can STILL point to my evidence. And you can listen or ignore. It’s all the same, Dennis.

    What I am TRYING to do here is engage people in a discussion on it. You sit back and kibitz, without actually commenting constructively on the points being made. That is pretty much the approach of Boslough and Pinter et al toward Firestone and the Kennetts and Schultz et al.

    PLEASE: Pick out some of the points I’ve made about comets and asteroids and peridotite and add to the conversation.

    Or not. Take your pick.

    Cryptic comments that go nowhere is Ed’s style. Don’t fall into that one…

  55. More word salad and strawman bullshit. Without a plausible explanation, or mechanism, of what can make a planet explode, your exploding planet hypothesis is just another pile of pseudoscience.

  56. P.S. no one said you have to “fully explain“ it. But the simple fact is that you haven’t provided any explosion mechanism whatsoever.

  57. Seriously, then, dude – throw out the Big Bang.

    As to possible mechanisms, go look up Tom van Flandern. He says it well enough and better than I can.

    That is, if yuou actually want to know. If you don’t, then what is your point? And if you say to see if I know, that isn’t a valid question. Unless you are going to ask Hawking about his Big Bang. You would not ask him just to test him. What is your goal with me?

    I can answer a question with a question. That is not a straw man. A straw man is me changing it AND then claiming that that other is proof that you are wrong. Changing it because you asked ME is not as straw man. It is if YOU had stated something and I switched and tehn proved YOURS wrong inappropriately. Since you didn’t put up an argument but only asked a question, it can’t be a straw man.

    You don’t even have a horse in the race yet. Therefore a straw man argument is not possible on my part. In fact, YOUR challenging me to present an explanation is a form of straw man, because I had not broached that point. And YOU haven’t addressed MY points – but put up something else. Not ONE point of min have you addressed.

    The cause of the explosion was not what I was addressing. I was talking about how THEIR theory fails on several points. Do you have any response to ANY of those points?

  58. I am not in this to win an argument with anyone here. I am trying to get at the thruth of the matter – and if you come up with that, I will applaud you.

    Logical fallacies (such as straw men arguments) are used by people who will try to win a debate anyway they can. I am not out to win any debate. I wish you would actually contribute to the discussion. I think you have good ideas to put into it, and I for one would like to hear what you have to say, on the science, not on scoring points in a debate.

    I’ve been reading up and reading up and reading up, and the more I read, the more their planetary nebula as it stands does not seem to be capable of creating some of the rocks that are found within at least some asteroids.

    Any thoughts on any of that?

  59. The best source of information on some of the topics you claim you are interested in may be found here. Your best bet for reliable information on planetary astrophysics would not be on crackpot websites. There are lots of recent papers on the topic of planetary dust nucleation and eventual accretion into bodies.

  60. TLE says: “Your best bet for reliable information on planetary astrophysics would not be on crackpot websites.”

    TLE, FYI I go straight to the primary source papers, literally every time they are available. And almost every time they are. I search them out assiduously. And I go to NASA and NOAA and such sites. I do not go to websites written by Joe Main Steet guys. I consider them the lowest of the low – SLOPPY THINKERS.

    The weakest source material I will do is Wikipedia, and then never on anything controversial. And whatever they say, if it is footnoted I go look at the source material the best I can.

    Many papers I end up going to are just Abstracts, so being too poor to pay $40 US for papers, I do my best with the abstract information.

    I’ve probably accessed 75 papers in the last month or two, with abstracts being about half of those.

    And I don’t go to blogs.

    I WILL access scientific articles, but do my best to keep those to NASA and such. I look at articles on Phys.org and cringe at how sloppy the articles are written. The majority make me shake my head at the conclusions people jump to.

    Like I said, I try hard to get the most primary source papers I can.

    If my direction isn’t to your liking, be aware that all scientists are not one homogeneous pile of humanity. There ARE many pieces of evidence upon which scientists come to differing opinions about.

    Just because the conclusions others come to doesn’t agree with your POV doesn’t make them crackpots.

  61. Just because the conclusions others come to doesn’t agree with your POV doesn’t make them crackpots.

    No, the might be giants. But if their views widely diverge from discernible reality as I see it, or consensus science as it is seen by the vast majority of workers in the field of their specialty, then probably they are safe to ignore.

  62. So far Steve your “points” have been nothing more than your own personal opinions of peer reviewed science.

    Did I miss something, or did you present a peer reviewed source that debunks, or refutes, the accretion theory of planetAry formation?

    I note that the universe folks use a similar tactic in their argument for crater formation by giant interplanetary electric discharges. They casually dismiss decades of impact research, and peer reviewed literature, claiming that impacts can’t believably account for the features we see in the craters on the Moon, and Mars. But as rediculous as their electric cratering model may sound, at least they’ve got an alternative to the real science they’re pissing on with nothing more than personal opinions.

    Simply put, your personal opinions of peer reviewed science, whether pro or con, and no matter the subject, are useless unless in any valid scientific debate supported by more peer reviewed science. And as screwed up as it is, the peer review process is the only thing that separates real science from pseudoscience, and science fiction.

    As for debating the validity of your peronal opinions regarding plantary accretion theory, scince they are belief based, it’d be just about as pointless as debating your religious, or political views.

  63. TLE: “No, the might be giants. But if their views widely diverge from discernible reality as I see it, or consensus science as it is seen by the vast majority of workers in the field of their specialty, then probably they are safe to ignore.”

    No. What it means is that the two of you don’t agree. By saying “they are safe to ignore” simply because they disagree with you or what side you think is the majority, that is hubris of the most ridiculous kind on your part – “if their views widely diverge from discernible reality as I see it“. Thinking that only the side YOU think is right is right. Piffle. Who set you up as the arbiter of what is correct?


    Remind me to check with you before I think about anything.

  64. Steve, I don’t do science to make you happy, I do science to make myself happy. In science, my opinion is the only one that counts … to me. The fact that my opinion of science may change often and rapidly, is nobody’s problem but my own.

    That’s my opinion and I’m sticking with it … until I change my mind.

  65. Yes, Dennis. This is a BLOG. On blogs, people express opinions. Duh.

    As to the accretion theory, I am tniking out loud here, which I have stated nmore than once. What is wrong with that?

    It would be lovely if instead of attacking me, you actually addressed specific points. That is the point of this, to elicit responses to the questions I m asking and the shortcomings I believe are there.

    Instead, you want to avoid any discussion of the points and attack me. Why? playing Ed Grondine now?

    Let’s see if I can spell this out clearly: If you have some specific point to make about what I am pointing out, can you please make your point? If not, what is the purpose in your attacking. If you disagree, say so, and please: Specific would be good. You don’t have to worry about using too many words. The internet is big enough. It can handle it.

    As to links, I’ve provided numerous links. I’ve commented scores of times with links on this. On Itokawa, on 67P, blah, blah, blah. And quoted many other sources. If you aren’t actually reading my comments…

    As to opinions, when YOU express an opinion, am I supposed to jump up and down and point at Dennis and say, “NOPE! Not fair! That’s an opinion, not a fact!“?

    Of course not. Express all the opinions you want – but please, make them about the science I’ve tried to discuss.

    If you totally disagree, then shoot my points down. All you’ve done is blanket accusatinos with nothing to respond to.

    And as I’ve said at the end of several comments:

    “Tell me where I am wrong.”

    Telling me in a blanket statement that others disagree is not useful, and you know it.

    Hell, Dennis, I was one of the few who saw your cerros in NM and northern Mexico and who said, “Yeah, I think you’ve got something there.” I even added my own two cents. I DO think you’ve got something there.

    And your area up in N Minnesota – Dude! That is awesome stuff. And the details – the specifics – is what makes it all super interesting.

    So, I am asking you: Tell me what it is, detail-wise, that you disagree with, of what I’ve been asking and questioning.

    For the record: I am not an electrical universe kind of guy. That cratering by electrical discharge is silly season stuff.

    But I DO have to ask you also: WHY do you keep saying that what I am saying is a “belief”? Have I not quoted and linked extensively, and haven’t I expressed logical reasons for what I am questioning? If you don’t see that, I have to think you didn’t pay attention.

    Again, not ONE of your points is about the exact and specific points I question. You’ve said nothing about regoliths, strengthless bodies, pressures, heat, micro-gravity, peridotite, olivine, Allende meteorite, Itokawa, 67P, velocities, asteroid collisions. I’ve researched at length on all of this, reading scores of papers, and you call everything I’ve said “BELIEFS.”


  66. Dennis – That my logic comes up with observations that the current paradigm fails on several points – I am entitled to come to different conclusions.

    Dennis – TLE just expressed an opinion. Do you want to jump down his throat, too? (“That’s my opinion and I’m sticking with it … until I change my mind.“)

    I don’t have BELIEFS about any of this stuff. I have tentative understandings. I do not think that what I think at any given moment is the truth and all of the truth. I ask questions. I TRY to engage in a discussion (which is what CosmicTusk is all about). If you don’t agree, fine. I myself don’t agree. I am just thinking out loud (as I’ve said many times), pointing at things that don’t seem to make sense. That is not belief. It is the pursuit of knowledge. I invite you to join in.

  67. Ok Steve you tell us you’ve read a lot of abstracts. The problem with basing one’s opinions on abstracts though is that abstracts never contain any actual data, only the researcher’s opinions of what they think their data reveals.
    If you don’t go into the body of a paper, and parse the actual data, then any hypothesis that comes of it is built on a subjective opinion of someone elses opinion, not data, and mired in the cognative bias of one’s own personal belief system. What’s more, without that actual data, there’s nothing but unfounded, sciencey sounding, words, and assumptions to debate. AKA pseudoscience.

  68. Geez, Dennis – Careless reading on your part. I said I read scores of papers and about half were abstracts. I get the best info I can.

    Give me a freaking break.. AGAIN with the ad himiem instead of dealing with what I actually SAY.

    NOT ONCE here have you addressed ANY POINT I’VE MADE. It’s all personal attacks.

    Shall I begin calling you Dennis Grondine?

    I apologize for not having $0 I can plunk down several times a week because of paywalls.

    And I suppose you’ve never read or quoted abstracts, either. Right? If you’ve got all that kind of money, more power to you. I don’t.

    But many times I am able to get the entire papers, and I DO read the data and methods and do grasp about 99% of what I read. Even if it is rocket science, I have sufficient intelligence and education to understand and comprehend. I’ve been reading science stuff now for about 50 years, so I am no newbie at it.


    Talk the science or shut the hell up.

  69. Yeah, complain of non existant ad hominem, and then call me someones “attack dog”.

    The only point I have problem with is the one you haven’t made; a non existant explosion mechanism.

  70. Gentlemen; I’ve been following your discussions and think that a change of direction is due. My opinion on planetary explosion is that the most likely candidate for causation is MAJOR impact destroying both the planet and the impactor. Now whether the impactor was a moon object or monster asteroid or comet will take some time and $$$ to investigate. But my feeling is that once more sampling of comets etc can be accomplished a pattern of compositions wll become apparent and a much clearer picture can be had. Is there any known data about the approx total mass of the debris in the asteroid belt. This could be a starting point to see if there was sufficent mass to be called a planet and produce the heat and psi’s needed to produce olivine, periodite etc. Damn, I wish I was retired and rich I’d be having a whole lot fun with this stuff and so would alot of you.

  71. Am I the only one who has read up on the formation of extra terrestrial dust? The olivine group of minerals have been found in very young star systems, systems that have yet to form planets, but do have planetary nebulae. It is likely that the shock wave, from star ignition , passing through the nebula provides the heat and pressure to form the minerals.
    Shockwaves from star ignition, passing through the nursery nebula, provide enough heat and pressure to ignite fusion, in sufficiently dense nodes od the nebula. This has been observed just recently.
    The minerals can also be formed in the atmospheres of silicon and oxygen rich nova, as the expanding gasses cool the minerals precipitate out.
    Keep in mind that these grains are extremely small, just enough molecules to form a crystal.
    With particles as finely divided as we are talking about, brownian motion is all the energy needed to make the particles stick together, permanently, as they are now sharing electrons.
    Also don’t forget that by the time out solar system formed, the universe had alread run through two thirds of is current age, leaving plenty of time for substantial amounts of these refractory materials to be formed.

  72. Cevin Q –

    All very good points. Thanks for the input. I will go read up on all of that. I can see points of difficulty in some of it, tying it into asteroid and comet formation, but it’s the best thing I’ve seen on it so far. And I’ve been looking assiduously, believe me.

    I will respond later…

  73. Hi Steve –

    “Shall I begin calling you Dennis Grondine?”

    While it is a free country, and you can say whatever you like, please don’t.

    I can’t begin to tell you how upset I am to see the two of your fighting like this.

    Please do not involve me in it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe for Updates

Tax deductible donations to the Comet Research Group can be made here